udhq:I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

birchman:halfof33: Karac: 1998? I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic. Which can only mean one thing:

EXACTLY! As I said, it is missing! Of course, I didn't create that lie. Thanks for having my back big guy!

What the hell is your point? That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?

As I recall, Republicans criticized Bill Clinton's efforts to retaliate for the 1998 bombing because they thought he was "Wagging the Dog" to get attention away from the Monica thing. So even though were were attacked by a known terrorist, the Republicans were against sending in the troops to track down those terrorists and kill them because it might make people forget about that stained blue dress. These same Republicans, when they took the White House, continued to ignore warnings that Bin Ladin was planning an attack on US soil. We might have gotten him in 1998 if the Republicans weren't so focused on their witch hunt.

This is something else that Republicans are desperate to avoid people remembering, their own incompetence. Sorry boys, but this isn't ever going to be a scandal. It's just Birtherism 2.0.

halfof33:birchman: That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?

It means that the graphic is grossly misleading, because the response to the attacks was not driven by partisan garbage, but rather because in the Benghazi case the administration told a series of incompetent lies. It highlights the problem at Benghazi is the lies.

halfof33:birchman: That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?

It means that the graphic is grossly misleading, because the response to the attacks was not driven by partisan garbage, but rather because in the Benghazi case the administration told a series of incompetent lies. It highlights the problem at Benghazi is the lies.

How exactly does it prove that? It provides no context as to how each event was responded to or the circumstances in which they were handled in the media. It seems you are reading a lot more into this graphic than is actually there. Help a blind man see, o wise one.

Rwa2play:randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.

3/10. C'mon man, troll a little harder wouldya?

The trolling has really gone downhill since the crushing defeat of everything they hold dear. Sad. No wait, what's that other thing.. Hilarious! Yeah, hilarious.

halfof33:Zasteva: ee, we've been over this again and again, and every claim you've made about Obama lying has been refuted every time.

Yawn, another lie:There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack.Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

I'm familiar with that quote from Fact Check.org. However, their own information contradicts it.

Perhaps you can you please provide a quote where Obama says that the attackers joined an angry mob?

The closest I can find is this on Sept 20th:

"Obama: Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don't want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests. "

You can certainly read into that there was a mob in Benghazi that terrorists used as cover, but it doesn't actually say that. I can understand your confusion, really, because when I first heard this I was left with the impression that there was a mob in Benghazi. I got that not just from the White House, but from the press reporting, that showed mobs and chaos all over the place. But that doesn't mean that Obama lied about it, just that he wasn't very clear. You can believe he intended to deceive us all for some reason, and you might even be correct. I can't pretend to know his intent or motivation.

Nevertheless, you haven't offered proof that he actually lied, much less that he lied with nefarious intent.

halfof33:udhq: I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

You also completely missed the lies about the non-existent protest.

Great post!

I like you.

Lets say Obama "lied" like you said. What should his punishment be for getting that wrong for a week or two which caused no lose of life and no cost to our nation?

And compare that to the lies that got us into the war with Iraq that killed thousands of American troops.

Imagine the questions that would have come: What did Obama do through the long, bloody night? Whom did he talk to? When did he learn that Stevens was dead?

The president's only instructions, Panetta said, were, "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."

It would be nice to know what Obama did during the nearly 11 hours from the start of the first attack until that plane left Libya, but in truth, we know enough to understand the meaning. His detachment during a terrorist attack was a shameful dereliction of duty.

Had he been a military officer, he would face charges. If he were George Bush, he would face ridicule and condemnation, at the least.

Obama was busy preparing his weather machine to steal the election with a hurricane.

halfof33:udhq: I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

You also completely missed the lies about the non-existent protest.

Great post!

I like you.

When did the president EVER mention a demonstration? I never heard anything of the sort. I only heard it called "an attack" the day of, and the next day it was acknowledge that the attack itself WAS a protest in response to the video, as was confirmed by the claim of responsibility.

I knew the truth, the media knew the truth, the administration knew the truth, the only one who didn't was apparently you.

It all comes back to you holding the president personally responsible for your willfull ignorance, when he went to every effort to educate you.

Corvus:Wow it was just a while ago that Republicans were telling us Obama was TOTALLY involved with every aspect of Benghazi and now the reason we should be upset at him was he was totally not involved.

I love how weekly the reason why we should be outraged completely changes and usually even contradicts the previous reason.

Heisenfartbongoberg Uncertainty Principle: You can't know precisely if Obama's inaction caused this specific outrage or if Obama's action caused this outrage because your outrage affects Obama's decision on whether to act / not act in future instances where you will be outraged regardless.

odinsposse:born_yesterday: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

I don't even think they know anymore.

The scandal is the goal. The whole point is to have some talking point they can use to turn public opinion against Obama. Like Bush had with Katrina, the Iraq War, water boarding, Guantanamo, and so on. They can't point to obviously issues like that with Obama so they have been forced to invent something.

The problem is they can't sell it because their Benghazi scandal isn't all that scandalous so neither they nor the public is all that invested in it. They won't give up until it either sticks as a talking point against Obama or they find a real scandal they can use instead.

This really sums it up. There isn't an end game for Republicans, the "scandal" itself IS the end game. They're going to fark that chicken until another chicken comes along, even if they have nothing left but a feather and the short side of the wishbone.

udhq:halfof33: udhq: I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

You also completely missed the lies about the non-existent protest.

Great post!

I like you.

When did the president EVER mention a demonstration? I never heard anything of the sort. I only heard it called "an attack" the day of, and the next day it was acknowledge that the attack itself WAS a protest in response to the video, as was confirmed by the claim of responsibility.

I knew the truth, the media knew the truth, the administration knew the truth, the only one who didn't was apparently you.

It all comes back to you holding the president personally responsible for your willfull ignorance, when he went to every effort to educate you.

And further more, what exactly would have been the material harm if the word "demonstration" had been used?

It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

So what's the remedy here? Could this all be fixed if Obama gets on his Fabulous Time Machine, goes back to that press conference and finally admits that the Benghazi attack was in fact an "act of terror"?

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack

Repububtards: HEY if you just pay attention to one part of what someone said and misinterpret it the Obama administration got something wrong, for a week, (which cost no lives or money) OUTRAGE!!! Oh Yeah Bush totally made statements that they new was incorrect for YEARS and costs THOUSANDS of lives and a TRILLION dollars. - That's perfectly fine!!

Karac:SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered. Well that comes as no surprise.

According to TFA, it as 5PM, and Obama's response was "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."How dare Barry depend on the CIA and DoD to do whatever they could! He should have shouldered a rifle and personally saved those men Lonestar-style!

Thank you. That's very reassuring. The President is informed that the consulate is under attack and he responds with: "Whatever."

halfof33:udhq: I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

You also completely missed the lies about the non-existent protest.

Great post!

I like you.

The day after the attack, Obama called it an "act of terror." He knew it was a terrorist act. He called it a terrorist act. The confusion was in what to tell the American people during the investigation, and the administration didn't want to tip their hand. Throw in the fact that there were multiple protests at multiple embassies, some of them actually citing the video, and you can see why the narrative got muddled, both by politicians not in the loop and the media. But this isn't a scandal, it's just a pathetic and sad attempt to tarnish Obama's legacy. It won't work.

Perhaps the Republicans would have had more traction with this if they had stopped high-fiving themselves after the attack. Nothing made them happier than the prospect of using four deaths to make Obama look bad. Romney couldn't stop smirking during his press conference. Their sheer joy in this is what will ultimately make them look worse in the long run, and in a year no one will remember the name Benghazi.

Sorry, but you are pretty much written off as Birther 2.0 with this nonsense. We award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

udhq:It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."

SkinnyHead:Karac: SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered. Well that comes as no surprise.

According to TFA, it as 5PM, and Obama's response was "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."How dare Barry depend on the CIA and DoD to do whatever they could! He should have shouldered a rifle and personally saved those men Lonestar-style!

Thank you. That's very reassuring. The President is informed that the consulate is under attack and he responds with: "Whatever."

It's telling that the order to defend the consulate by any means necessary="whatever".

I guess, after all, this IS coming from the people who think the appropriate response to a terror attack is a 10 year ground war in an unrelated country.....

Let me be honest here: I think Obama Admin mentioned the other protests to the video in the Arab world just because he wanted to defuse the situation. But that's smart diplomacy. And that's why the GOP is so mad because Obama didn't say something stupid like "All Muslims are EVIL!!!" (that and because they just hate Obama no matter what.)

halfof33:udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."

Sorry who and when did someone lie before congress about this? Can you give us an exact quote?

SkinnyHead:Karac: SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered. Well that comes as no surprise.

According to TFA, it as 5PM, and Obama's response was "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."How dare Barry depend on the CIA and DoD to do whatever they could! He should have shouldered a rifle and personally saved those men Lonestar-style!

Thank you. That's very reassuring. The President is informed that the consulate is under attack and he responds with: "Whatever."

So telling the head of the CIA and DoD to handle as they see fit, Barry should have said absolutely nothing and continued to read "My Pet Goat"?

randomjsa:Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.

it's a damn shame the right has you as a spokesperson. it sure doesn't help them.

Corvus:halfof33: udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."

Sorry who and when did someone lie before congress about this? Can you give us an exact quote?

Nope, but I bet he can give you an out of context grouping of words that he can twist into making a vague reference to something resembling his baseless assertion.

Although he might just quit responding to you too like he has to me because he can't answer my questions.

Curious:randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.

it's a damn shame the right has you as a spokesperson. it sure doesn't help them.

This could be said about most of them these days. The intelligent ones jumped ship.

halfof33:udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."

halfof33:udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."

And I didn't sit in my committee chair and say "Actually, you're right, it makes no difference, but I'm still going to filibuster military leadership during wartime."

Corvus:halfof33: udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."

that is a freaky page. The trolling possibilities are endless, but damned what a freaky age.Those chrisitans do love their guns and benghazi scandals. And they really really really hate the president of the unitied states.

Corvus:Sorry who and when did someone lie before congress about this? Can you give us an exact quote?

For reals? Hillary. "Was it because of a protest or is it because of guys out for a walk one night and they decide they go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?" C'mon man.

halfof33:Corvus: Sorry who and when did someone lie before congress about this? Can you give us an exact quote?

For reals? Hillary. "Was it because of a protest or is it because of guys out for a walk one night and they decide they go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?" C'mon man.